A STUDY ON FACTORS AFFECTING BRAND

PREFERENCE: AN EMIPRICAL APPROACH

Ms. Ankita Popli1 , Prof. (Dr.) Manish Madan2
1
Research Scholar, Pacific University, Udaipur
2
Founder & Chairman, International Association of Research & Development Organization , Delhi

ABSTRACT
In this era of throat-cut competition, it is very essential for a brand to be in the minds of customers for its
sustainability. This study focused on exploring the factors of brand knowledge that make brand a preferred
brand as well as to understand the brand experience factors developed due to impact of brand interactions. This
study further focused on understanding the impact of brand knowledge and brand experiences which helps in
making brand, a preferred brand. To achieve these focused areas, six hypothesis were created at 5% level of
significance which were further analyzed with the help of various statistical tools like correlation and multiple
regression analysis. The analysis was done with the help of SPSS 20 version software to investigate the impact
of preferred brand on the intention to re-purchase and various recommendations were given in the end.

Keywords –Brand experience, brand knowledge, brand preference, correlation, multiple regression.

I. INTRODUCTION
The term brand is neither the physical entity nor it is the actual service. It is the customers only which make any
product a brand. Branding is done in the minds of the customers. Kevin Keller defined brand knowledge as
awareness of the brand name and belief about the brand image. Valuable beliefs are reliable beliefs – consistent
and durable. In addition to belief, consumer experience is asignificant part of brand knowledge and
understanding. Consumer experience consist of emotions, sentiments, excitements, sensations, and
[Link] awareness is connected to the perceptivedepiction of the brand(Peter and Olson 2001). In the
terms of a layman, the brand awareness and understanding of customers is basically the information of product
that is stored in the memory of the customers. This brand knowledge includes full description of the product as
well as the evaluated and criticized brand information. The perception, observation and opinion of the customers
about the actions of brands is known as brand experience. A brand experience is basically the interfaceamong
the individual and a tangible or intangible brand. Hence a brand experience can include one or more of a
recipient’s five senses and cause any kind of [Link] the brand through a variety of situations
creates in the mind of a potential consumer a kind of profile full of feelings and attitudes about the brand,
helping the consumer to psychologically predict what items associated with it are likely to be [Link] for

547 | P a g e
any brand reflects anaspiration of customer to use a particular product(s) or service(s) of a company; even when
there are equally-priced and equally-available alternatives. In fact, more often than not, brand preference
indicates a desire to seek out a specific product or service even when it requires paying more or expending more
effort to obtain it! Brand preference is important to companies because it provides an indicator of their
customers' loyalty, the success of their marketing tactics, and the strength of their respective [Link] notion
of preference has been considered in different disciplines such as economists, psychologists, sociology. On the
other handthere is no commonly agreed definition of preference among these disciplines.
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Brands are important valuable intangible assets for companies, a distinctive tool that builds a long-term
relationship with the consumers, and protects its’ rights (Kolter et al., 2009).The first three decision-making
phases of brand loyalty constitute the focal point of brand preference. It describes the stated preference toward
certain brands over time, accompanied by behavioural consistency (Moschis et al., 1984).Brand preference is
distinct from attitudinal loyalty (Mattila, 2001); however, both assume that consumers’ strong beliefs about the
brand cognitive structure enhance brand loyalty (Kim et al., 2011).Rossiter and Bellman, (2005) suggested
different levels of preferences and their corresponding states of loyalty. There is strong brand preference for
single or multiple brands; the state at which consumers can be loyal to a certain [Link], the main
target of the consumer in the choice task is to satisfy his preference and select the alternative with maximum
utility (Rizvi, 2001).Brand liking is related to the strength of positive brand assets (Anselmsson et al., 2008).
Brand commitment refers to the deep emotional attachment of consumers to brands (Carlson et al., 2008; Desai
and Raju, 2007).Petruzzellis (2010) compared the impact of hedonic and utilitarian benefits on consumer
brand choices of mobile phones. He categorized consumers into three groups. The brand huggies refers to those
who use mobiles to keep in touch with their distant life. Technology enthusiasts focus on the technology and
technical performance more than social life, while pragmatists focus on price. The results of that study
demonstrated the importance of hedonic attributes over the utilitarian attributes in mobile [Link] study of
Tzou and Lu (2009) addressed the impact of brand attachment on the use fashion technology (laptop-Sony
Vaio) and the mediating role of utilitarian and hedonic brand attributes. The results supported the significant
indirect impact of brand attachment on fashion technology usage mediated by the hedonic factors. Moreover, the
findings show insignificant impact of the brand usefulness on fashion technology usage and negative impact of
the perceived ease of use on [Link] (2002) found that differences on brand preferences can be related to
demographics and/or psychographic variables.
III. RESEARCH GAP
As per the review of literature it was observed that most of the prior studies concerned with examining the
impact of brand experience on brand loyalty (Brakus et al, 2009; Biedenbach and Marell, 2010; Pullman and
Gross, 2004), brand relationship (Chang and Chieng, 2006),satisfaction (Ha and Perks, 2005; Morgan-
Thomas and Veloutsou, 2011 Rose et al, 2012), and brand value (Tsai, 2005). However, this considers being
the first study assuming the direct impact of brand knowledge, brand experience on brand preference and
consequently on the re-purchase intention and recommendation to others.

548 | P a g e
IV. OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
1. To explore the brand knowledgefactors that make brand a preferred brand.
2. To understandthe brand experience factors developed due to impact of brand interactions.
3. To understand the impact of brand knowledge and brand experiences in making brand a preferred brand.
4. To investigate the impact of preferred brand on the intention to re-purchase and recommendation to others.

V. HYPOTHESES OF STUDY
The following Hypotheses were formulated as follows:-
Here HO represents Null Hypothesis and HA represents Alternative Hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1:-
H01: There is no significant relationship between Demographic factors (Age, Gender, Income, Education, and
Marital Status) with that of the Brand Preference.
HA1:There is significant relationship between Demographic factors (Age, Gender, Income, Education, and
Marital Status) with that of the Brand Preference.
Hypothesis 2:-
H02: There is no significant relationship between Brand Knowledge with that of the Brand Preference.
HA2:There is significant relationship between Brand Knowledge with that of the Brand Preference.
Hypothesis 3:-
H03: There is no significant relationship between Brand Knowledge with that of the re – purchase intentions
and recommendation to others.
HA3: There is significant relationship between Brand Knowledge with that of the re – purchase intentions and
recommendation to others.
Hypothesis 4:-
H04: There is no significant relationship between Brand Experience with that of the Brand Preference.
HA4:There is significant relationship between Brand Experience with that of the Brand Preference.
Hypothesis 5:-
H05: There is no significant relationship between Brand Experience with that of the re – purchase intentions and
recommendation to others.
HA5: There is significant relationship between Brand Experience with that of the re – purchase intentions and
recommendation to others.
Hypothesis 6:-
H06: There is no significant relationship between Brand Preference with that of the re – purchase intentions and
recommendation to others.
HA6: There is significant relationship between Brand Preference with that of the re – purchase intentions and
recommendation to others.

VI. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The main objectives of the study are to understand the impact of brand knowledge and brand experience on the
brand preference and consequently leading to the intention to re – purchase and recommendation to others. In

549 | P a g e
order to achieve this objective, the researchers had employed the deductive approach of the research and
followed the step by step procedure. The theoretical foundation of the proposed hypothesis is obtained from the
literature. However the researchers do not maintain completely the deductive approach of research and apart
from this the primary data was obtained to add on variables that were missing in the existing literature.
a. Research Design
This study is trying to investigate the dimensions of brand preferences and consequently its impact on the
intention to re – purchase and recommendation to others. As the literature plays a vital role in the theoretical
foundation of the proposed hypothesis, so the research design in this study is being divided in two stages viz.
first stage comprised of the exploratory stage as the researcher has keen interested in gaining insights about the
factors affecting the customer preferences for different brand while second stage comprised of the primary data
obtained from cross sectional sample survey about the characteristics of the customers. This second stage
research design is called descriptive – explanatory stage. A systemized and organized study was done to reach
the desired objectives of the study.
b. Focus Group
The most frequently used method in marketing and business research is focus groups which examine attitude,
behavior, emotions, experiences etc. of the customers about a particular product or service. From this method
some important factors and priorities were notices that were missing in the literature. The main objective of
introducing focus group in this study as it helps in qualitative analysis of data. In this study the same particular
questions in sequence given to four focus groups. These four focus groups consisting of homogeneous
participants. The sampling frame of the focus group survey includes respondents living in Delhi of both the
genders. This focus group helped in investigating the differences across the respondents. The focus groups are
formed on the basis of gender, age and education level of the respondents. There were eight respondents in each
focus group and were arranged using a snowball technique.
Sources of Data
To cater the need of the research, the researchers have used primary data through self-constructed structured
Questionnaire and as far as the secondary data is concerned that was obtained from various reports, web sites,
and journals etc.
c. Sampling Technique
For this study, the population is the respondents living in Delhi which are users of mobile phones of different
genders. Cross sectional research design was [Link] Probability convenience sampling technique was
used to gather data from the respondents because the sampling frame is unavailable.
d. Data Collection Technique
Self – constructed structured questionnaire was used to gather data from the respondents living in various areas
of Delhi and using mobile phones. As the shopping malls are expanding and flourishing in Delhi so the
researchers decided to approach respondents in various malls of Delhi. A sample size of 300 was considered
good for the study.A total of 351 filled questionnaires were received from the respondents. Out of these 26
questionnaires were discarded and 325 questionnaires were used for the study.

550 | P a g e
Statistical Tools Used
Various statistical tests like Normality, Reliability and Validity tests were done to fulfill the necessary and
sufficient conditions of statistical tools. Hypothesis testing was done with the help of correlation and regression
analysis using statistical analysis software SPSS version 21.
e. About the Questionnaire
In order to develop a questionnaire to reach the desired objective a study of Churchill (1979, 1995) was
[Link] the questionnaire there were nine sections. Section A consisting of demographic profile of the
respondents. Section B contains 7 statements related to brand preference of the respondents. Section C contains
3 statements related to intention to re – purchase and recommendation to others. Section D contains 28
statements related to brand experience of the respondents. Section E contains 7 statements related to brand
knowledge of respondents. Statements were rated on five-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly
agree. The measurement items are adapted from the studies of Duarte and Raposo, (2010); Hellier et al.,
(2003), Jamal and AL-Marri, (2010), Overby and Lee, (2006), and Sirgy et al., (1997).

VII. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

a. Test of Normality
Table 1: Results of K – S test for Normality
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Brand Knowledge .135 325 .000 .926 325 .000
Brand Experience .172 325 .000 .883 325 .000
Brand Preference .192 325 .000 .804 325 .000
Re-purchase Intentions and .144 325 .000 .914 325 .000
Recommendation to others
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk (K-S test) of normality was done to make sure that data is normally
distributed or not. From table 1 it is clear that all the results are found to be insignificant as in all the cases
p<.001. Thus, the distribution of data is found to be normal.
b. Reliability Analysis
Table 2: Reliability Statistics
Construct Cronbach’s Alpha No. of Items
Brand Knowledge(BK) 0.814 7
Brand Experience(BE) 0.713 28
Brand Preference(BP) 0.838 7
Re-purchase and 0.772 3
Recommendation (RR)
Whole Questionnaire 0.784 45

551 | P a g e
In order to check the reliability of the questionnaire, the Cronbach’s Alpha test was applied. The value of
Cronbach’s alpha is found to be 0.814 in brand knowledge, 0.713 in brand experience, 0.838 in brand
preference, and 0.772 in re-purchase and recommendation to others of the questionnaire, which is well above
than 0.6. Also the overall value of Cronbach’s alpha is 0.784. As the value of Cronbach’s Alpha is more than
0.6, which considers the instrument to be reliable for the study. Therefore, the high Cronbach’s Alpha
coefficient in this study represents a high consistency and reliability among statements in questionnaire.
c. Validity Analysis
Table 3: KMO and Barlett’s test of Sphericity
Brand KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.823
Knowledge Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 8372.136
(BK) Df 255
Sig. 0.000
Brand KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.882
Experience Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 9284.128
(BE) Df 198
Sig. 0.000
Brand KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.811
Preference Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 8812.829
(BP) Df 190
Sig. 0.000
Re-purchase and KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy. 0.942
Recommendation Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 8126.228
to others Df 195
(RR) Sig. 0.000

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test was done to measure the homogeneity of variables and Bartlett's test of sphericity was
done to test for the correlation among the variables used. From table 3, it is found that the value for Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy was more than 0.6 in all the parts of questionnaire, as it is 0.823
in brand knowledge, 0.882 in brand experience, 0.811 in brand preference, and .942 in re-purchase and
recommendation to others. Also Bartlett's Test of Sphericity has significant value less than 0.05 at 5 % level of
significance in all the parts of questionnaire. Thus it is concluded that instrument is accepted for the study.
d. Coefficients of Correlation
Karl Pearson Coefficient of correlation was calculated to find the significant relationships between different
dimensions.
Table 4: Coefficient of Correlation
BK BE BP RR
Pearson Correlation Coefficient RR - 0.027 0.217 0.816 1
Sig. (2 – tailed) 0.821 0.091 0.000* -
Pearson Correlation Coefficient BP 0.724 0.836 1 0.816

552 | P a g e
 Sig. (2 – tailed) 0.000* 0.000* - 0.000*
Pearson Correlation Coefficient BE 0.758 1 0.836 0.217
Sig. (2 – tailed) 0.000* - 0.000* 0.091
Pearson Correlation Coefficient BK 1 0.758 0.724 - 0.027
Sig. (2 – tailed) - 0.000* 0.000* 0.821

From Table 4, it is quite clear that Brand Preference is significantly associated with re-purchase and
recommendation to others. Brand preference is significantly associated with Brand knowledge, Brand
experience and re-purchase and recommendation. However there is some association in some variables while
some have no relationship at all.

VIII. HYPOTHESIS TESTING

Hypothesis 1:-
H01: There is no significant relationship between Demographic factors (Age, Gender, Income, Education, and
Marital Status) with that of the Brand Preference.
HA1: There is significant relationship between Demographic factors (Age, Gender, Income, Education, and
Marital Status) with that of the Brand Preference.

Relationship between Demographic factors and Brand Preference

Table 5: Relationship between Demographic factors and Brand Preference
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error β
(Constant) 1.722 0.031 11.297 0.000*
Demographic factors 0.724 0.028 0.736 11.582 0.000*

Table 5 indicates that the multiple regression analysis identifies that brand preference is positively affected by
demographic factors. It is clear that the demographic factors contribute to the brand preference. Since the
positive relationship is found between both the variables. Since p – value is less than 0.01 that means it is
significant at 1% level of significance so the alternative hypothesis is supported that is there is significant
relationship between demographic factors with that of the brand preference.
Table 6: Regression Analysis – demographic factors and brand preference
Model R R2 Adjusted R2 S.E. of estimates F Sig.
1 0.821 0.674 0.651 0.6124 143.28 0.000*
a: Predictors: (Constant), Demographic factors, b: Dependent variable: Brand Preference

Table 6 shows the association between the demographic factors and brand preference of customers using
mobile phones in Delhi. The coefficient of correlation between demographic factors and the brand preference of
customers is 0.821 and the value of R square is 0.674. Thus aroundthree fourth of variation in dependent

553 | P a g e
variable that is brand preference of product is explained by the independent variable demographic factors. Since
the Adjusted R square is found to be 0.651 which indicates that 65.1% of the variation in brand preference of
customers is explained by the demographic factors. The significant value is found to be 0.000 which is below
than 0.05, thus it is significant at 5% level of significance. Thus, null hypothesis is rejected and alternative
hypothesis is accepted. So, there is significant relationship between Demographic factors (Age, Gender, Income,
Education, and Marital Status) with that of the Brand Preference.

Hypothesis 2:-
H02: There is no significant relationship between Brand Knowledge with that of the Brand Preference.
HA2:There is significant relationship between Brand Knowledge with that of the Brand Preference.

Relationship between Brand Knowledge and Brand Preference

Table 7: Relationship between Brand Knowledge and Brand Preference
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error β
(Constant) 1.247 0.214 13.726 0.000*
Brand Knowledge 0.658 0.084 0.636 13.226 0.000*

Table 7 indicates that the multiple regression analysis identifies that brand preference is positively affected by
brand knowledge. It is clear that the brand knowledge contribute to the brand preference. Since p – value is less
than 0.01 that means it is significant at 1% level of significance so the alternative hypothesis is supported that is
there is significant relationship between brand knowledge with that of the brand preference.

Table 8: Regression Analysis – brand knowledge and brand preference

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 S.E. of estimates F Sig.
1 0.724 0.524 0.518 0.5242 136.82 0.000*
a: Predictors: (Constant), Brand Knowledge, b: Dependent variable: Brand Preference

Table 8 shows the association between the brand knowledge and brand preference of customers using mobile
phones in Delhi. The coefficient of correlation between brand knowledge and the brand preference of customers
is 0.724 and the value of R square is 0.524. Thus more than half of variation in dependent variable that is brand
preference of products is explained by the independent variable brand knowledge. Since the Adjusted R square
is found to be 0.518 which indicates that 51.8% of the variation in brand preference of customers is explained by
the brand knowledge. The significant value is found to be 0.000 which is below than 0.05, thus it is significant
at 5% level of significance. Thus, null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted. So, there is
significant relationship between brand knowledge with that of the Brand Preference.

554 | P a g e
Hypothesis 3:-
H03: There is no significant relationship between Brand Knowledge with that of the re – purchase intentions
and recommendation to others.
HA3: There is significant relationship between Brand Knowledge with that of the re – purchase intentions and
recommendation to others.
Relationship between Brand Knowledge and Re-purchase Intentions and Recommendation to others
Table 9: Relationship between Brand Knowledge and Re-purchase Intentions and Recommendation to
others
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error β
(Constant) 1.427 0.416 28.626 0.881
Brand Knowledge - 0.026 0.041 0.061 28.618 0.826

Table 9 indicates that the multiple regression analysis identifies that re-purchase intentions and recommendation
to others is negatively affected by brand knowledge. It is clear that the brand knowledge did not contribute to
the re-purchase intentions and recommendation to others. Since p – value is more than 0.01 that means it is not
significant at 1% level of significance so the null hypothesis is supported that is there is no significant
relationship between brand knowledge with that of the re-purchase intentions and recommendation to others.

Table 10: Regression Analysis – brand knowledge and re-purchase intentions and recommendation to
others
2
Model R R Adjusted R2 S.E. of estimates F Sig.
1 - 0.027 0.001 - 0.082 0.2421 146.22 0.837
a: Predictors: (Constant), Brand Knowledge, b: Dependent variable: re-purchase intentions and
recommendation to others

Table 10 shows the association between the brand knowledge and re-purchases intentions and recommendation
to others using mobile phones in Delhi. The coefficient of correlation between brand knowledge and re-purchase
intentions and recommendation to others is – 0.027 and the value of R square is 0.001. Since the Adjusted R
square is found to be - 0.082 which indicates that the negative variation in re-purchase intentions and
recommendation to othersis explained by the brand knowledge. The significant value is found to be 0.837 which
is above than 0.05, thus it is insignificant at 5% level of significance. Thus, null hypothesis is accepted and
alternative hypothesis is rejected. So, there is no significant relationship between brand knowledge with that of
the re-purchase intentions and recommendation to others.

Hypothesis 4:-
H04: There is no significant relationship between Brand Experience with that of the Brand Preference.
HA4:There is significant relationship between Brand Experience with that of the Brand Preference.

555 | P a g e
Relationship between Brand Experience and Brand Preference
Table 11: Relationship between Brand Experience and Brand Preference
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error β
(Constant) 1.718 0.621 11.262 0.000*
Brand Experience 0.738 0.012 0.733 11.684 0.000*

Table 11 indicates that the multiple regression analysis identifies that brand preference is positively affected by
brand experience. It is clear that the brand experience contributes to the brand preference of customers. Since p
– value is less than 0.01 that means it is significant at 1% level of significance so the null hypothesis is
rejectedand can be concluded that is there is significant relationship between brand experiences with that of the
brand preference of customers.
Table 12: Regression Analysis – brand experience and brand preference
Model R R2 Adjusted R2 S.E. of estimates F Sig.
1 0.836 0.699 0.682 0.2162 136.26 0.000*
a: Predictors: (Constant), Brand Experience, b: Dependent variable: Brand Preference

Table 12 shows the association between the brand experience and brand preference of customers using mobile
phones in Delhi. The coefficient of correlation between brand experience and brand preference is 0.836 and the
value of R square is 0.699. Since the Adjusted R square is found to be 0.682 which indicates that the 68.2%
variation in brand preference of customers is explained by the brand experience. The significant value is found
to be 0.000 which is below than 0.05, thus it is significant at 5% level of significance. Thus, null hypothesis is
rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted. So, there issignificant relationship between brand experiences
with that of the brand preference of customers.

Hypothesis 5:-
H05: There is no significant relationship between Brand Experience with that of the re – purchase intentions and
recommendation to others.
HA5: There is significant relationship between Brand Experience with that of the re – purchase intentions and
recommendation to others.

556 | P a g e
Relationship between Brand Experience and Re-purchase Intentions and Recommendation to others
Table 13: Relationship between Brand Experience and Re-purchase Intentions and Recommendation to
others
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error β
(Constant) 2.714 0.031 27.682 0.813
Brand Experience 0.264 0.018 0.288 29.816 0.081
Table 13 indicates that the multiple regression analysis identifies that re-purchase intentions and
recommendation to others is not affected by brand experience. It is clear that the brand experience did not
contribute much to the re-purchase intentions and recommendation to others. Since p – value is more than 0.01
that means it is not significant at 1% level of significance so the null hypothesis is supported that is there is no
significant relationship between brand experience with that of the re-purchase intentions and recommendation to
others.

Table 14: Regression Analysis – brand experience and re-purchase intentions and recommendation to
others
2
Model R R Adjusted R2 S.E. of estimates F Sig.
1 0.217 0.047 0.042 0.2186 138.21 0.528
a: Predictors: (Constant), Brand Experience, b: Dependent variable: re-purchase intentions and
recommendation to others

Table 14 shows the association between the brand experience and re-purchase intentions and recommendation
to others using mobile phones in Delhi. The coefficient of correlation between brand experience and re-purchase
intentions and recommendation to others is 0.217 and the value of R square is 0.047. Since the Adjusted R
square is found to be 0.042 which indicates that only the 4.7% variation in re-purchase intentions and
recommendation to others is explained by the brand experience. The significant value is found to be 0.528
which is above than 0.05, thus it is insignificant at 5% level of significance. Thus, null hypothesis is accepted
and alternative hypothesis is rejected. So, there is no significant relationship between brand experience with that
of the re-purchase intentions and recommendation to others.

Hypothesis 6:-
H06: There is no significant relationship between Brand Preference with that of the re – purchase intentions and
recommendation to others.
HA6: There is significant relationship between Brand Preference with that of the re – purchase intentions and
recommendation to others.
Relationship between Brand Preference and re-purchase intentions and recommendation to others

557 | P a g e
 Table 15: Relationship between Brand Preference and re-purchase intentions and recommendation to
others
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error β
(Constant) 3.726 0.041 11.615 0.000*
Brand Preference 0.812 0.046 0.862 11.264 0.000*

Table 15 indicates that the multiple regression analysis identifies that re-purchase intentions and
recommendation to others is positively affected by brand preference. It is clear that the brand preference
contribute to the re-purchase intentions and recommendation to others. Since p – value is less than 0.01 that
means it is significant at 1% level of significance so the alternative hypothesis is supported that is there is
significant relationship between brand experience with that of the re-purchase intentions and recommendation to
others.
Table 16: Regression Analysis – brand preference and re-purchase intentions and recommendation to
others
2
Model R R Adjusted R2 S.E. of estimates F Sig.
1 0.816 0.666 0.662 0.4216 146.21 0.000*
a: Predictors: (Constant), Brand preference, b: Dependent variable: re-purchase intentions and
recommendations to others

Table 16 shows the association between the brand preference of customers using mobile phones in Delhi and
re-purchase intentions and recommendation to others. The coefficient of correlation between the brand
preference of customers and re-purchase intentions and recommendation to others is 0.816 and the value of R
square is 0.666. Thus 66.6% of variation in dependent variable that isre-purchases intentions and
recommendation to others is explained by the independent variable brand preference. Since the Adjusted R
square is found to be 0.662 which indicates that around three fourth of the variation in re-purchase intentions
and recommendation to others is explained by the brand preference. The significant value is found to be 0.000
which is below than 0.05, thus it is significant at 5% level of significance. Thus, null hypothesis is rejected and
alternative hypothesis is accepted. So, there is significant relationship between re-purchase intentions and
recommendation to others with that of the Brand Preference.
IX. CONCLUSION
1. The study reveals the brand preference determinants. This study concentrates on multiple factors that
constitute customer knowledge and experience of the brand which enables the determination of salient
factors in preference formation. Thus, the study highlights the importance of experiential responses besides
the cognitive component of brand knowledge in predicting consumer preferences.
2. It is observed from statistical analysis that brand experiences directly affect the customer brand preferences.
3. The brand experience plays a significant role in delivering the value created by the brand attributes that
shape consumer preferences.

558 | P a g e
4. The findings reveal the full mediating role of brand experience in terms of the relationship between brand
personality and brand preferences.
5. The research defines the components of brand experience: sensory, emotional, intellectual and behavioural.
These are evoked by contacting the brand at different levels of involvement.
6. The study reveals the determinants of re-purchase intentions and recommendation of brand to others.
7. The study reveals that demographic factors play a vital role in the brand preference.
X. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. As far as the technological products are concerned like mobile phones, building the brand preference is not
so easy. Customers using technological products are rational and irrational in their preferences. In such kind
of products brand experience plays very important role in the preferences of brand. Customers using the
brands can advertise the product through word of mouth to non-users through their experience.
2. Price is critical, it is important in terms of developing consumer preferences for technological brands.
Pricing of technological products is one of the company’s important decisions. The rapid technological
advancement and innovation makes the product life short and volatile; therefore, companies place great
emphasis on the pricing decision.
3. To position the brand based on symbolic associations, practitioners need to differentiate between the
construct of self-congruity and brand personality. The findings did not support the direct impact of brand
personality on either brand preference or repurchase intention.
4. The objective of branding strategy is to frame consumer perceptions and preferences for certain brands.
Through this study, managers can develop an experiential branding strategy; position, build, and conceive
the brand in consumers’ mind aligning the brand experience.
5. Managers need to take advantage of consumer responses induced from the technological product examined
characteristics and affecting their preferences. They need to put emphasis on building strong hedonic
experiences for consumers.
6. Managers can benefit from other types of experiences unperceived by the consumers but created by the
company itself. Thus, broadening its experiential appeal from sense and feel to think and explore relate and
act appeal. Taking advantage of enhancing consumer preferences and purchasing decisions using multiple
experiential dimensions.
REFERENCES
[1] Anselmsson, J., Johansson, U., and Persson, N. (2008). The Battle of Brands in the Swedish Market for
Consumer Packaged Food: A Cross-Category Examination of Brand Preference and [Link] of
Brand Management, 16(1), 63-79.
[2] Biedenbach, G., and Marell, A. (2010).The Impact of Customer Experience on Brand Equity in a Business-
to-Business Service [Link] Management, 17(6), 446-458.
[3] Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H., and Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand Experience: What Is It? How Is It
Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52-68.
[4] Carlson, B.D., Suter, T.A., and Brown, T.J. (2008). Social Versus Psychological Brand Community: The
Role of Psychological Sense of Brand [Link] of Business Research, 61(4), 284-291.

559 | P a g e
 [5] Chang, Pao-Long., and Chieng, Mimg-Hua. (2006). Building Consumer–Brand Relationship: A Cross-
Cultural Experiential [Link] and Marketing, 23(11), 927-959.
[6] Churchill, G.A. (1995). Marketing Research Methodological Foundation, 6th ed. The Dryden Press.
[7] Desai, K.K., and Raju, S. (2007). Adverse Influence of Brand Commitment on Consideration of and
Preferences for Competing [Link] and Marketing, 24(7), 595-614.
[8] Duarte, P.A.O., and Raposo, M.L.B. (2010). A PLS model to Study Brand Preference: An Application to
the Mobile Phone Market, in Handbook of Partial Least Squares, Springer Handbooks of Computational
Statistics.
[9] Ha, Hong-Youl., and Perks, H. (2005), Effects of Consumer Perceptions of Brand Experience on the Web:
Brand Familiarity, Satisfaction and Brand [Link] of Consumer Behavior, 4(6), 438-452.
[10] Hellier, P.K., Geursen, G.M., Carr, R.A., and Rickard, J.A. (2003). Customer Repurchase Intention: A
General Structural Equation [Link] Journal of Marketing, 37(11/12), 17 - 63.
[11] Jamal, A., and Al-Marri, M. (2007).Exploring the Effect of Self-Image Congruence and Brand Preference
on Satisfaction: the Role of [Link] of Marketing Management, 23(7/8), 613-629.
[12] Johar, J. S., Berkman, H. (1997). Assessing the Predictive Validity of two Methods of Measuring Self-
Image [Link] of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(3), 229-241.
[13] Kim, D., Magnini, V. P., and Singal, M. (2011).The Effects of Customers’ Perceptions of Brand Personality
in Causal Theme [Link] Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(2), 448-458.
[14] Kotler, P., Keller, K.L., Brady, M., Goodman, M., and Hansen, T. (2009).Marketing Management,
Pearson/Prentice Hall.
[15] Lin, Ching-Feng. (2002). Segmenting Customer Brand Preference: Demographic or [Link]
of Product & Brand Management, 11(4), 249-268.
[16] Mattila, A. (2001). Emotional Bonding and Restaurant [Link] Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 42(6), 73–79.
[17] Morgan-thomas, A., and Veloutsou, C. (2011). Beyond Technology Acceptance: Brand Relationships and
Online Brand [Link] of Business Research, 13(2), 25 – 38.

[18] Moschis, G.P., Moore, R.L., and Stanley, T. J. (1984).An Exploratory Study of Brand Loyalty
[Link] in Consumer Research, 11(1), 412-417.
[19] Overby, J. W., and Lee, Eun-Ju. (2006). TheEffect of Utilitarian and Hedonic Online Shopping Value on
Consumer Preference and [Link] of Business Research, 59(10), 1160-1166.
[20] Peter, J. P., and Jerry C. Olson (2001).Consumer Behavior,Chicago: Irwin.
[21] Petruzzellis, L. (2010). Mobile Phone Choice: Technology VersusMarketing: The Brand Effect in the
Italian [Link] Journal of Marketing, 44(5), 610-634.
[22] Pullman, M.E., and Gross, M.A. (2004).Ability of Experience Design Elements to Elicit Emotions and
Loyalty [Link] Sciences, 35(3), Summer, 551-578.
[23] Rizvi, S.A.T. (2001). Preference formation and the axioms of choice, Review of Political Economy, 13(2),
141-159.
[24] Rossiter, J.R., and Bellman, S. (2005). Marketing Communications: theory and applications, Pearson.

560 | P a g e
[25] Rose, S., Clark, M., Samouel, P. and Hair, N. (2012). Online customer experience in e-retailing: an
empirical model of antecedents and outcomes, Journal of Retailing, 88(2), 308-322.
[26] Sirgy, M.J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T.F., Park, Jse-ok., Chon, Kye-Sung., Claiborne, C. B.,
[27] Tsai, Shu-pai. (2005). Utility, cultural symbolism and emotion: a comprehensive model of brand purchase
value, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(3), 277-291.
[28] Tzou, R.C. and Lu, H.P. (2009).Exploring the emotional, aesthetic, and ergonomic facets of innovative
product on fashion technology acceptance model, Behaviour& Information Technology, 28(4), 311-322.

561 | P a g e